Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:20, 29 July 2015

	Todd Manning has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 9, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed August 20, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed September 25, 2008 Good article reassessment Not listed April 4, 2010 Good article nominee Listed A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 2, 2007. Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soap Operas This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Archives

Archive 1 - Covering discussion until September 2013, including its successful GAC and resolution of a dispute about splitting the article into a separate one about Victor Lord, Jr. and how to handle Todd's recast by Trevor St. John and the return of Roger Howarth. Archive 2 - 2014 article improvement, part one; discussion between main editors User:Flyer22 and User:Figureskatingfan including sources and images. Archive 3 - 2014 article improvement, part two; discussion includes rewriting and restructuring most sections.

Final business

So I've moved the content over to article space! Yoo hoo! I will record final thoughts/tasks I think should be accomplished here. Boy, it feels weird to work in actual article space and not in sandboxes.

• You'll notice that I kept the scar and parrot images. I'm willing to see how they fair during FAC. Because we're keeping the scar image, I thought I'd only use one villain Malone compares Todd to because a gallery would be too busy. I chose Gable because of the rapist comparison. I created a gallery of Haskell and Smith. I really wish we had more options for images, although I think that what we have is good. Any more ideas?

• This is the first time I've really looked at the "Further reading" section. I'd like to remove it, since the only source that's worthwhile is the Fineman book. Actually, now that I look at it, we may be able to use it as a source. I'll work on that and see if it has anything to add to the content. At any rate, what do you think about this section?

• "External links" section: I don't think this section is necessary, either, for similar reasons as above. The only link that either works and fits is the Soap Central one, and it doesn't give any new and/or valuable information.

Wow Fly, look at us! By moving everything over this afternoon, we've made a huge accomplishment! We should be so proud! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Although the Todd Manning 101 – SOAPnet.com link could be helpful if, since it's currently a WP:Dead link, there is an Internet Archive version of it, I'm fine with removing the External links section. I'm not sure about removing the Further reading section.

Like I stated here, I changed the location of images and removed one because, though I used to usually show variation with image placement, these days...I've usually been placing them on the right, per MOS:IMAGELOCATION. And the File:MichaelEastonCrop.jpg is not going to work; it is likely WP:Nonfree; has no sufficient license. A WP:Nonfree image is supposed to significantly enhance readers' understanding of the text and/or have sufficient commentary assisting it. That image, unlike the scar image, does not do that/have that.

Here and here, I cut two WP:Blockquote formats. And here, I removed redundancy from the lead about popularity. Flyer22 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm good with your changes. I change my mind about images, too. I put the scar and parrot images on the left because Howarth is facing left, and the Haskell/Smith one on the right because Haskell is looking slightly to the left. I understand about the Easton image. I really wish we had more images to put here, but I suppose that's the nature of the article. So does that mean that we're ready to submit it to FAC? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to address the "Further reading" section. As per MOS:FURTHER, O'Neil, Miller & Sparks, and Scordari doesn't add to the reader's knowledge about the subject of this article. Feminism, Media, and the Law is now used as a source in this article, and nothing in this section should duplicate what's in the article. That's why I think the section should be removed. Do you know of any source that's about rape in soap operas, or villains, or leading men? I've removed the "External links" section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead and remove the Further reading section. I feel that the second paragraph is currently too big, so I will go ahead and split that up. But, yeah, I guess go ahead and go to WP:Featured article review. Is it the plan that we do everything that the WP:Featured article reviewers tell us to do? I ask because that's the main thing that I hate about these processes (WP:Good article and WP:Featured article reviews); they tell us to jump, and we ask: How high? There are things I might want to debate before we do what they tell us to do. I obviously don't feel like rehashing there the debates we had here, but I'll debate if I feel it's necessary. And do you not want to get a WP:Copyeditor on this article first? I know that putting a request in at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors can take a very long time these days, but I mean personally selecting a WP:Copyeditor. Flyer22 (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I decided not to split up the second paragraph; this is because of the topic sentences for each of the paragraphs. But I did cut bits from the paragraph, since it looked too bulky to me; I'm sure it wouldn't have looked that way to me, if it was not right up against the infobox. Flyer22 (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed section. Yah, that's one of the things I hate about the FAC process, too. When reviewers have nominators jump through hoops just for the sake of it, it doesn't really help improve the article. So much of it feels like busy work, but I still believe that the process is valuable. I suspect that there will be loads of discussion at FAC about Todd, and yes, we'll have to spend time explaining and debating. Fortunately, we've already done it between us two, so we'll be prepared for their arguments. I think that finding a copyeditor on our own is a fine idea. We both have our cabals and posses, so coming up with someone willing to do it shouldn't be difficult. Do you know anyone you trust you'd be willing to ask? I can think of a couple of editors, but since you're more familiar with folks familiar with soap opera articles, I'm willing to use anyone you suggest. At any rate, I agree that we need a copyedit before we submit to FAC. I'm a strong believer in being as prepared for FAC as possible, in order to circumvent debates and to make the process as easy as possible. These days, I have to ask my cabal to review my FACs, because reviewers tend to bypass them because they don't think they know enough about the topic, or because they know that they won't have much to add. I'm happy when an FAC passes with just one nomination, and with few reviewers. One of my FACs passed with just three supports. I'm not saying that this will be as easy, but the more prepared we are, the better. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As you know, I've made more tweaks to the article, including having moved a bit from the Casting and portrayals section to the Characteristics section, and having changed the "Characteristics" heading to "Personality"; as that edit summary states, I changed the heading so that it makes more sense why the scar and hair details are not in that section. I had considered combining the appearance and personality material, but I was reminded (by myself) of our above debates on this material and why we kept it in the places that we did; for example, I wanted to keep the word scar as part of the heading (and I still want that), and keep the scar and hair material as a subsection of the Creation and development section, and you didn't want the Characteristics section to be a subsection of that section; you wanted it to be standalone section. Today, I also considered moving the Characteristics section into the Creation and development section and dividing it up into "Signature scar and hair" and "Personality" or "Personality and appearance, or "Personality and wardrobe," but the scar and hair are also part of his appearance, and, again, I remembered that you wanted the Characteristics section to be a standalone section...and that I didn't want the Creation and development section to look too packed by having subsections of subsections. Plus, there is not much wardrobe information anyway. So, yeah, pretty much the things we've already debated. I decided to change the "Signature scar and hair" heading to "Signature scar, hair and facial cues," since, like you noted before, that section is also about Todd's face. Titling the section that also allowed me to comfortably move the commentary (that was in the Characteristics section) about his face there. It fits better there than in the Personality section. I would have titled it "Signature scar, hair and facial features," but it's more accurate to indicate that it was his facial cues that developed (or worked with what they developed) than to indicate that the creators developed his face; his face obviously already existed.

I'm not sure that we need a copyeditor. I simply felt the need to suggest the idea. I'm not sure who to ask to copyedit the article, if you feel strongly about us going through with that. But I want to take the time to thank you for having come to this article seeking to improve it, and having pushed me to improve it. I shake my head now at the way that I was initially resistant to changing too much about the article. The article is, as you know, much improved thanks to your involvement. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

As indicated by this edit, where I tweaked a reference format for consistency, I realized that the article is now using the British setup for the reference dates. I'll roll with it, but is there any reason that you prefer the British setup? Also, as seen here and here, I'm conflicted on whether or not Howarth's take on why Todd raped Marty fits better in the Background section or in the Archetypes and rape section. The reason that I think it fits well in the Background section is because that section (you know, other than the lead) introduces the characters and the rape aspect. This goes well with mentioning Todd and Marty's initial connection -- that they had a one-night stand and she was his tutor -- and then noting the reason for the rape. It's not simply Howarth's opinion that Marty rejects Todd's later romantic advances, that this upsets Todd, festers, and that he decides to get revenge on her after he fails an exam even after she tutored him. This source, which I've used in the Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines article (I'm not sure how acceptable the source is on the WP:Reliable sources scale) addresses the tutor/revenge aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 07:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with your changes as described directly above; I get your reasoning behind it all and am good with it. I'm glad you think that all this time and effort has been worth it; I certainly think so. I use the British system for reference dates because I try to use VisualEditor as much as I can, and it only accepts the British system. I know the policy states that it doesn't matter what system is used; as long as it's consistent. I've come to personally prefer the British system, but it doesn't matter, although I'm not willing to go back and change it all again. We just need to make sure it's consistent.

Re: a copyeditor: I'm fine with moving straight to FAC at this point. Like I said above, it won't be smooth and I think we should be prepared for it. I'm willing to take point and respond to the comments if you like, although I will name you as my co-nominator. Give me the go-ahead and we'll go for it! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, as you've seen, I've been making more changes to the article, mainly minor changes. If it bothers you that I've been making changes right at the end of this thing (our collaboration), let me know. This is my latest significant edit to the article (with this followup note and this followup edit). I added new sources and pieces from those sources, and readded the Jill Berry sources/commentary you had added to the Todd sandbox. Because it's such vital material on Todd's personality/relationships, I've changed my mind on including it and I now feel that we should take our chances on it regarding what WP:Featured article reviewers might state about using those About.com sources. Berry is a well-known soap opera commentator, after all, and using her sources to cite her opinions should be fine. But, as you can see, I kept away from adding any more mediabizbloggers.com sources, per what we stated about the word blog above on this talk page (despite the fact that soap opera commentators are commonly bloggers/use blogs to report their soap opera critical views). But, anyway, I felt that the Todd Personality section needed more information, and so I fleshed that out. I also placed a tiny bit about "the Todd was raped by Peter Manning aspect" there because it fits there, and of course it's elaborated on in the Redeeming Todd section. I still want a Storylines section, though I prefer the character name links where they are and it could be a waste to have them in a Storylines section. But, as we've agreed on before, a Storylines section is not vital for the Todd Manning article. Give me another day or two to see if I am satisfied with the current state of the article, and we can move on to the WP:Featured article review. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've seen that you made the changes; I'm inclined to be fine with them, but I probably won't have time to look more closely at them until the weekend. (I have some end-of-the-round GA Cup business to take care of and my fellow judges have been silent and/or absent the last couple of weeks, and we're going away for the holiday.)

I'm also inclined to agree with you about using blogs. I'm of the opinion that we need to use them sparingly. Yes, blogs are how most soap commentary are done these days, but we should only use blogs from established soap commentators like Marlena, Berry, and Fairman. I started to comb through Berry's blog for content, but stopped after we agreed not to use her. I think that we should continue because it means that this article would be more comprehensive and include more storyline, which we both agree is needed. When we get to FAC, we need to explain our rationale for using them. It may take a little longer, but I think it's worth the time. There's no rush, right? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the use of Berry and similar, we agreed to use those types of sources sparingly, not that we should never use them. The bit that I added was keeping in line with that. The only reason that I added the Berry content to the Personality section is because it's not a lot of content and that section needed fleshing out. It is important to note those aspects of Todd's personality. All the other sections in the article are adequately fleshed out; so I'm not sure what other content you'd be looking to add, unless it's for a Storylines section. I could craft a Storylines section, and then we could add critical commentary to it for the big moments, which, as I've noted before, is what the Pauline Fowler article does for its storylines information. And the Todd Manning article partly does that for the writing sections. But, yeah, no rush. I felt that you wanted to go ahead and go to WP:Featured article review. Flyer22 (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond; things have been busy here and IRL. I'm fine with the changes you made and why. I'm so interested in seeing what reviewers think, especially about its structure and if they want us to move stuff around. I'll go ahead and peruse Berry now, and perhaps that will bulk up storyline content. After that, and barring any objection from you, I'll go ahead and submit to FAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to apologize, especially with as long as I've taken to respond to you on Todd Manning matters. I tweaked the Berry bit you recently added. I think that there is enough Berry content in the article, however, especially in the Personality section. I've made up my mind that I'm going to go ahead and downsize the Storylines section that was in the article, remove or downsize any redundancy in it that is covered later on in the article, and add critical and/or actor commentary to it. Again, storyline sections are common for fictional character articles. This is also evident by Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Television. I don't see that there will be any problem with the one I'm going to add. Give me a few or several days to get it together, and then you can obviously let me know if you are pleased with it or want changes made to it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan, regarding this addition concerning Berry, is it not somewhat redundant to what is already in that section? It is to me. Also, how much more are you looking to add regarding Berry? I obviously think that we should take it easy on that aspect, and stick to what we've already included from her before today. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I can see your point about the above addition being repetitive, so I tweaked it a bit and I think it's much better now. Would you mind, when you work on the Storylines section, using a sandbox? Re: Berry: I've been going through her commentaries and gleaming what I can. looking for assessment of Todd's character and behaviors. Personally, I don't think it's excessive, and she's been a good source for information about the tail end of Todd's story as played by St. John. I think that there's potential for some expansion and fill-in about the St. John years, which I think is lacking. I think that I've been selective thus far and have only added from about half a dozen of Berry's commentaries in the last few weeks. Tell me what you have issue with, and we can discuss further, of course. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you tweaking this Berry bit. My issue with using Berry is what I've already stated on the matter; yes, she is a soap opera commentator that is known well enough to the soap opera community, but she is essentially a blog from About.com -- a site that Misplaced Pages has given mixed feelings about, but leans more toward the "don't use About.com as a source" side. This is why when I'm like, "We should use her as a source sparingly.", I definitely mean sparingly. As for the St. John material lacking, there is plenty of St. John material in the article; when we discussed the amount of St. John material, I told you that I made it a point to give him as much space as needed, but you stated that the article would obviously have significantly more Howarth detail. And I agreed. As for more storyline material, like this piece you recently added, that is going to be covered by the Storylines section, which is why I'll likely cut storyline bits from the Impact and reception section that are redundant. I won't cut much storyline information from the Creation and development or the Personality section, and I won't cut any storyline material from the Early writing and literary analysis section. I don't usually work in sandboxes; this is because, especially given the contentious topics I work on, I don't like people seeing what I am working on before I add the material to an article. It's like an invitation for that person to be nosy. But I did think of working in a sandbox for this storyline matter, so that you and I can tweak things together more sufficiently...and before the content goes live. Here is the sandbox: User:Flyer22/Todd Manning plot summary; it currently is the exact storyline content you pulled from the article, except for the Todd Manning and Blair Cramer link at the top of the section. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll try and be even more sparing, if that's a word. I'm almost finished combing through Jill's commentaries; they run until mid-2010, and then Kaydee Barnett takes over, and I haven't looked at them to decide if they're usable. Yes, we decided that the article would be more Howarth-heavy, but that's because we saw that there's been more written about him as Todd than St. John. I think that if we can find more content about St. John out there, we should add it. I also think that reviewers will initially have issues with our use of about.com, but that once we explain that it's appropriate for this article, with the dearth of soap opera commentary out there, they'll accept it. If we include a storylines section, yes, we need to watch out for repetition, although we can use the sources. Thanks for moving the plot summary in a sandbox; I totally understand your feelings about sandboxes, with your more contentious topics, but we should be safe with Todd, since it seems that our work thus far has flown under the radar, as they say. (That must be a new experience for you, haha!) I'll take a look at your sandbox and muck about it in the next couple of days, since I'm off work for several weeks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not keen on using anymore About.com sources, and we should be careful to avoid redundancy when adding content about Todd's personality; for example, this latest bit you added was partly redundant, so I cut the redundant part. Then I felt that the section needed rearranging, so I did that, as seen here. We don't especially need About.com sources. They are helpful for a little information regarding Todd's personality, and a bit for his popularity, but I don't see a need for their use beyond that. We don't have to use them for the Storylines section, and I'd prefer that we don't. I've noted before that, per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries, the Storylines section does not have to be sourced. Again, I'm looking to significantly cut that section down. The only thing that I am looking to source in that section is critical commentary, in quote boxes, like I did here in the Revictimizing Marty section, and the sources that I plan to use for that are soap opera magazine sources. If you want the Storylines section designed in a different way than that, then I prefer that you let me know before you begin working on the section in the sandbox. I know the most significant Todd storylines, and I have critical commentary quotes that can be used for those. Flyer22 (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I hear you and I won't use about.com anymore; I was almost done, and what's left probably isn't usable, anyway. I think we're pretty much finished with the commentary sections; i.e., everything else. I agree that the current version is as comprehensive as it's gonna get. Since we're moving onto discussion about the Storylines section, I'm going to move it to a new section now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Storylines section

Fly, to be frank, I'm good with the article as it stands, although I understand your point about needing a Storylines section, so I'm also good with including one. I agree that it should be significantly shorter than the version in your sandbox User:Flyer22/Todd Manning plot summary, which is, I'm sure you'll agree, full of WP:FANCRUFT. I agree with everything you've stated above. Specifically and most importantly, I agree that we should change the structure. I'd like us to model this section after Pauline Fowler, which looks at her storylines critically and is very well-written. Since you are more familiar with Todd's storylines, I agree that you should be the one who decides what gets cut. As you say, you may need to move some of the commentary; again, that's up to you. I'll keep an eye out and we'll continue the discussion. I know you're busy with other stuff around here, so I feel bad for expecting it, but let me know how I can assist, as always. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Although I mentioned the Pauline Fowler storyline sections as an example to you, I don't have the time to make the Storylines section much like that. Like I noted in the section immediately above this one (my "07:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)" post), there is no need to source the Storylines section...unless sourcing commentary that is not a part of the plot. Sourcing the section is a choice, for the most part. But either way, I don't have enough WP:Reliable sources to source the whole section. To source that whole section, I'd have to search for, likely pay for, soap opera magazine sources or resort to SoapCentral.com and/or About.com. And, as already noted, I'd rather stay away from SoapCentral.com and About.com sources; they should be used sparingly. Furthermore, and I noted this before on this talk page, SoapCentral.com's plot sections are written by fan volunteers. Again, for the Todd Manning Storylines section, I'm looking to significantly cut that section down. The only thing that I am looking to source in that section is critical commentary, in quote boxes. I'll try to get started on that soon. Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I might also add critical commentary that is not in quote boxes; the Pauline Fowler storyline sections use both styles (quote boxes and non-quote boxes). But I'm not sure, especially since the Early writing and literary analysis section of the Todd Manning article is already like that (relaying the story with critical commentary that is not in quote boxes). Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggested edits

Hi - I added a tone tag because the style of the article needs a little improvement; it's mainly the use of quotes inserted in the text without attribution. There are also several paragraphs including statements of opinion lacking references e.g. "The most important aspect of Todd's appearance for St. John was his character's hair", though for the most part it's the lead that needs reworking. There also seems to be an over-reliance upon Soap Opera Weekly as a source of opinion, but I'm not sure of the rules there. The tag was removed by another user but I still think it needs work. Up to others out there to decide 77.99.12.140 (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This editor should be ignored. Nothing but a stalker/harasser who does not know what he is talking about. For example, the "most important aspect of Todd's appearance for St. John was his character's hair" is sourced; the IP seemingly requires WP:Citation overkill, which is a no-go. I will be ignoring the IP at this talk page and article unless it is to revert WP:Disruptive editing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I still think the use of quotes inserted in text without attribution goes against Misplaced Pages's Quotation guidelines. And I'm not suggesting a citation overkill - just that potentially contentious statements are supported by citations that the average user can identify; what is the reference for the statement of opinion "The most important aspect of Todd's appearance for St. John was his character's hair"? What's the source? It isn't clear within the text, though I have attempted to check the sources. There are plenty of good portions of the article, though. 77.99.12.140 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The statement about St. John's hair is sourced by ref15, at the end of the paragraph, and it's a reasonable citing technique. This article is referenced this way throughout. You really don't know what you're talking about. Not that I should be wasting my time, but in case there are others who are interested and actually investing in improving this project, it's not required to link the lead, unless there are direct quotes; see WP:LEADCITE. SOW is a soap opera industry magazine, so this article is going to use it and other mags like it more than other sources. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Note The IP also engaged in WP:Vandalism at this talk page, as seen with this edit. And, yes, it's the same person. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Too much stalking time on his hands indeed. Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Trevor St. John never actually portrayed Todd, that was retconned away long ago.

Hello to all! As anyone who knows anything about Todd Manning will know: Trevor St. John never actually portrayed Todd, that was retconned away long ago. Apparently I have to write that here before taking out incorrect info from the infobox (even though this very article states it in the very first paragraph...).Cebr1979 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979, thanks for taking the discussion here to the talk page, as per WP policy. You say that St. John never portrayed Todd, but you're wrong; he did, something that has agreed upon by all parties involved in OLTL and by consensus here. See here . Although this discussion centers around whether or not Victor Lord, Jr. should have his own article, consensus stated that St. John was a recast. Additionally, this discussion between the two architects of improvements that have occurred in the past year demonstrate consensus that St. John is a recast. For these reasons, this article treats St. John as a recast, and as the first paragraph states, history was changed later. I was going to revert back, but I see that it has already occurred. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

: Cebr1979, you are incorrect, which is why Figureskatingfan reverted you first, and then I reverted you. Whether or not Trevor St. John portrayed Todd Manning was discussed before, at Talk:Todd Manning/Archive 1#Separate articles. And as was made clear there by Raintheone and I, that St. John portrayed Todd Manning is a fact. It's a fact that is WP:Reliably sourced in the Casting and portrayals section and elsewhere in the article. It's a fact that is on St. John's filmography record. That the character he was portraying was rewritten to be Todd's twin brother (Victor Lord, Jr.) does not negate the fact that St. John portrayed Todd. You are thinking from a WP:Inuniverse perspective. And even from a WP:Inuniverse perspective, the character portrayed Todd since he was conditioned to believe he was Todd and all the characters believed he was Todd for eight years. Outside of that WP:Inuniverse perspective, it is a fact that St. John portrayed Todd Manning for eight years. Then he was written to portray a different character. Since I do not feel like debating you on something that is such a common sense matter, especially given our most recent debate where you were very hostile (and were WP:Blocked for it), and since your WP:Edit warring/disruption at this article is detrimental to Figureskatingfan and I nominating this WP:Good article for WP:Featured status, I am WP:Pinging Bignole for his help with explaining your WP:Inuniverse perspective. I will also alert WP:Soaps and WP:TV to this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

And as for you relinking those character names, I delinked them because they will be covered in the Storylines section I will be adding. WP:Overlinking is clear. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... looks like an old conversation. Time for another one because it would make sense to have this article go in line with other American soap articles with the same circumstances (ie: Drake Hogestyn not really playing Roman Brady and Kelli Giddish not really playing Dixie Cooney).Cebr1979 (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely time for another conversation! After reading them, any comments regarding St. John being a recast sure do look like original research... We will discuss.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... You've been "adding" that storyline section for over half a year now. I feel it's in wikipedia's best interest (and also the reader's who come to this site), to leave the linking as is until you finally find the time to get around to what you've not yet done even though you said you will. Definitely not a case of overlinking. At this point in time, it's actually a case of underlinking.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Like I stated on my talk page, "This case is not like the Kelli Giddish/Dixie Cooney matter at all, since Kelli Giddish was never officially Dixie Cooney." I don't know what WP:Original research rationale you are arguing. And it has not been that long since I originally de-linked the names you re-added, or de-linked the other names. I alerted the aforementioned WikiProjects to this discussion, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It actually has been that long, allow me to refresh your memory with this edit of yours where you de-linked Patrick Thornhart because of your upcoming storylines section... over half a year ago. This is not the purpose of this discussion, however. We're here to discuss Trevor St. John not having portrayed the character of Todd Manning. I'll drop the Dixie thing to make you happy but, it is 100% exactly the same as Drake Hogestyn not portraying Roman Brady. Having St. John listed as a Todd Manning portrayer is not only misleading, it clutters the infobox. Thank you for posting on the projects page. Let's have others weigh in.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

In addition to other things you and I disagree on, we disagree on what is "that long" as well. The Patrick Thornhart matter is from January 10, 2015, while this and this matter are from July 26, 2015‎. Time flies by fast for me, and, as various Misplaced Pages editors know, I am often very busy. And comparing this wording change of mine to this, this and this, you clearly went back into the edit history and partly reverted to a previous version of the article (meaning you edited an older version of the article), or you looked over all my recent edits and decided that's one of the ones you wanted to "tweak." Well, I guess I should be thankful that you fixed my typo (the missing "of") on that matter and didn't revert all of my recent changes. And regarding the "Drake Hogestyn not portraying Roman Brady" matter, that is also taking an asinine WP:Inuniverse perspective, especially since the Roman Brady Casting section is currently clear that Drake Hogestyn portrayed Roman Brady. You are also the one who removed Drake Hogestyn from that article's infobox. If none of the aforementioned WikiProjects weigh in on this discussion, I will start a WP:RfC on this particular WP:Inuniverse perspective; it will, in fact, be a wide-scale WP:RfC to stop this silliness from happening to other Misplaced Pages articles. I might start that WP:RfC regardless. Also, considering that your Cebr1979 account was created in 2013, and you have taken the WP:Inuniverse perspective that IPs and less experienced registered editors have taken on this matter, and that you put the name Todd Manning in quotation marks beside St. John's portrayal in the infobox, it might be that you are one of the editors I reverted on this matter/discussed this matter with before now. Flyer22 (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Lol - You're just always the victim, aren't you? Now, is it possible for you to keep this conversation on topic please because it's starting to feel like you're intentionally making it exceedingly lengthy in order to make others not want to join in. If this continues, I will just move a condensed (and on topic) version of this conversation somewhere else. As for your newest assumption that I am from some other conversation or whatever the paranoia is you're referring to, I actually made the quotation mark edit because of the Drake Hogestyn image on the Roman Brady page. The simplest explanation is often the correct one. For the final time, keep this on topic please.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Cebr, you said that this actor was retconned to not have portrayed Todd Manning. Here is the most important fact, we don't deal in retcons. If it existed as true originally, then it exists as true historically. We can say that they later retconned this event, but we don't remove it simply because producers want us to forget it happened. THat's not how Misplaced Pages works. We work based on history, and historically he did actually portray the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, @Bignole:! So, since we don't deal with retcons, the entire Trevor St. John business should be removed from the entire article, not just the infobox for, you see... Trevor St. John was originally "Walker Laurence" and then retconned into "Todd Manning" and then later again retconned into "Victor Lord, Jr." Or, we could just remove St. John from the infobox and leave the rest of the info as is. You can read all about it here. It's just one big retcon.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I am not interested in your WP:Personal attacks. As for your suggestion that I am "intentionally making exceedingly lengthy in order to make others not want to join in"... If I didn't want others to weigh in, I would not have WP:Pinged Bignole or contacted the aforementioned WikiProjects. When a matter concerns your edits, others always have to weigh in, because you are hardly ever willing to budge on your opinion, even when proven wrong, and you commonly WP:Edit war. It is not my fault that you feel the need to respond to everything and always have to have the WP:The last word, even when a person tells you to stop posting to their talk page. If others do not weigh in on this discussion, it won't be because of WP:Too long, didn't read, but rather because of the way you behave in debates (the way you behave in debates has been made repeatedly clear on your talk page). As for messing with this talk page, if you mess with it any way that violates WP:Talk, I will revert you and take the matter to WP:ANI. You are not welcomed at my talk page; so moving any of this there will also get you a revert. Your WP:Inuniverse perspective on casting matters will not be allowed to stay on Misplaced Pages; prepare for that. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to give you an opportunity to start following wikipedia's policies and talk about the edits, not the editor. Do you have any comments about me you'd like to remove from this conversation you've made exceedingly lengthy (which is a direct violation of talk page policy) or would you like to meet at ANI?Cebr1979 (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

When are you going to learn to stop giving editors advice that you can't follow? I find it ridiculous that, knowing that you and I don't get along (and for good reason), you chose to show up at the Todd Manning article and disrupt it days before it was to be taken to a WP:Featured article review. No doubt you saw this section on my talk page while posting there about your faulty grammatical expertise. Good luck with reporting me at WP:ANI; you'll need it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, please keep this conversation on topic rather than adding another lengthy post.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: There is no talk page policy, unless one counts WP:Not a forum. And my above posts, which I do not consider lengthy, especially the shorter ones, are not in violation of any talk page protocol because of their length. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines: lease review the section marked "Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts."Cebr1979 (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Media and drama good articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles that are good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class television articles
• Mid-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• GA-Class soap opera articles
• WikiProject Soap Operas articles
• GA-Class fictional character articles
• WikiProject Fictional characters articles